The Victor/FRST Function for Model Quality Estimation

Scoring functions are widely used in the final step of model selection in protein structure prediction. This is of interest both for comparative modeling targets, where it is important to select the best model among a set of many good, "correct" ones, as well as for other (fold recognition or novel fold) targets, where the set may contain many incorrect models. A novel combination of four knowledge-based potentials recognizing different features of native protein structures is introduced and tested. The pairwise, solvation, hydrogen bond, and torsion angle potentials contain largely orthogonal information. Of these, the torsion angle potential is found to show the strongest correlation with model quality. Combining these features with a linear weighting function, it was possible to construct a robust energy function capable of discriminating native-like structures on several benchmarking sets. In a recent blind test (CAFASP-4 MQAP), the scoring function ranked consistently well and was able to reliably distinguish the correct template from an ensemble of high quality decoys in 52 of 70 cases (33 of 34 for comparative modeling). An executable version of the Victor/FRST function for Linux PCs is available for download from the URL http://protein.cribi.unipd.it/frst/.

[1]  Hongyi Zhou,et al.  Distance‐scaled, finite ideal‐gas reference state improves structure‐derived potentials of mean force for structure selection and stability prediction , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[2]  J. Thornton,et al.  PROCHECK: a program to check the stereochemical quality of protein structures , 1993 .

[3]  Eckart Bindewald,et al.  A divide and conquer approach to fast loop modeling. , 2002, Protein engineering.

[4]  Alfonso Valencia,et al.  Protein Refinement: A New Challenge For Casp In Its 10th Anniversary , 2005, Bioinform..

[5]  S. Tosatto,et al.  Application of MM/PBSA colony free energy to loop decoy discrimination: Toward correlation between energy and root mean square deviation , 2005, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[6]  Stefano Toppo,et al.  The thioredoxin specificity of Drosophila GPx: a paradigm for a peroxiredoxin-like mechanism of many glutathione peroxidases. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[7]  Long‐ and short‐range interactions in native protein structures are consistent/minimally frustrated in sequence space , 2002 .

[8]  Silvio C. E. Tosatto,et al.  MANIFOLD: protein fold recognition based on secondary structure, sequence similarity and enzyme classification. , 2003, Protein engineering.

[9]  Arne Elofsson,et al.  MaxSub: an automated measure for the assessment of protein structure prediction quality , 2000, Bioinform..

[10]  R. Samudrala,et al.  An all-atom distance-dependent conditional probability discriminatory function for protein structure prediction. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[11]  M. Levitt,et al.  Energy functions that discriminate X-ray and near native folds from well-constructed decoys. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[12]  B. Honig,et al.  Free energy determinants of tertiary structure and the evaluation of protein models , 2000, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[13]  M. Levitt,et al.  A novel approach to decoy set generation: designing a physical energy function having local minima with native structure characteristics. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[14]  M. Hao,et al.  Molecular mechanisms for cooperative folding of proteins. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[15]  Alexander Tropsha,et al.  Development of a four-body statistical pseudo-potential to discriminate native from non-native protein conformations , 2003, Bioinform..

[16]  Federico Fogolari,et al.  Amino acid empirical contact energy definitions for fold recognition in the space of contact maps , 2003, BMC Bioinformatics.

[17]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles , 1992, Nature.

[18]  R Samudrala,et al.  Decoys ‘R’ Us: A database of incorrect conformations to improve protein structure prediction , 2000, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[19]  Daniel Fischer,et al.  Servers for protein structure prediction. , 2006, Current opinion in structural biology.

[20]  M. Levitt,et al.  Improved protein structure selection using decoy-dependent discriminatory functions , 2004, BMC Structural Biology.

[21]  Adam Zemla,et al.  LGA: a method for finding 3D similarities in protein structures , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[22]  D Fischer,et al.  CAFASP‐1: Critical assessment of fully automated structure prediction methods , 1999, Proteins.

[23]  J. Skolnick,et al.  A distance‐dependent atomic knowledge‐based potential for improved protein structure selection , 2001, Proteins.

[24]  D. Shortle.  Composites of local structure propensities: evidence for local encoding of long-range structure. , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[25]  A. Sali,et al.  A composite score for predicting errors in protein structure models , 2006, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[26]  Hongyi Zhou,et al.  An accurate, residue‐level, pair potential of mean force for folding and binding based on the distance‐scaled, ideal‐gas reference state , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[27]  T. Yeates,et al.  Verification of protein structures: Patterns of nonbonded atomic interactions , 1993, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[28]  Celia A Schiffer,et al.  Lack of synergy for inhibitors targeting a multi‐drug‐resistant HIV‐1 protease , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[29]  Giorgio Valle,et al.  Functional insights from the structural modelling of a small Fe-hydrogenase. , 2006, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

[30]  P E Bourne,et al.  The Protein Data Bank. , 2002, Nucleic acids research.

[31]  D. Shortle.  Propensities, probabilities, and the Boltzmann hypothesis , 2003, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[32]  G. N. Ramachandran,et al.  Stereochemistry of polypeptide chain configurations. , 1963, Journal of molecular biology.

[33]  Ian W. Davis,et al.  Structure validation by Cα geometry: ϕ,ψ and Cβ deviation , 2003, Proteins.

[34]  M. Karplus,et al.  Discrimination of the native from misfolded protein models with an energy function including implicit solvation. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[35]  A. Sali,et al.  Statistical potentials for fold assessment , 2009 .

[36]  Manfred J. Sippl,et al.  Boltzmann's principle, knowledge-based mean fields and protein folding. An approach to the computational determination of protein structures , 1993, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[37]  Roland L. Dunbrack,et al.  CAFASP2: The second critical assessment of fully automated structure prediction methods , 2001, Proteins.

[38]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  VERIFY3D: assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles. , 1997, Methods in enzymology.

[39]  M. Sippl.  Recognition of errors in three‐dimensional structures of proteins , 1993, Proteins.

[40]  Giorgio Valle,et al.  Simple consensus procedures are effective and sufficient in secondary structure prediction. , 2003, Protein engineering.

[41]  David C. Jones,et al.  GenTHREADER: an efficient and reliable protein fold recognition method for genomic sequences. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[42]  A. Elofsson,et al.  Can correct protein models be identified? , 2003, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[43]  R Samudrala,et al.  Ab initio construction of protein tertiary structures using a hierarchical approach. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.